MICHAEL STOKES Opinion on the validity of the Pulp Mill Permit under the Pulp Mill Assessment Act.

SWECO PIC did not assess the mill for compliance with all the guidelines. SWECO PIC appears to have carried out an even narrower assessment than that required by the PMA Act, in particular failing to assess against guideline D.3.19, which requires that all potential [water] pollutants will meet the Australian Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality, against guidelines D.3.20-23, which set standards for biological studies of the marine environment and against D.4 of the Guidelines, which deals in detail with the monitoring regime for the mill to ensure compliance during its operations.

If I read this report correctly Gunns lawyers drafting Section 11 of the PMAA within the Lennon parliament have not been as clever as the Piper desired. Let us explore through the readership of Tas Times if we can prosecute an effective case in a non Tasmanian jursdiction,into this matter. I consider the legal profession in Tasmania is tainted by appointment and association with Labour, Kons, Lennon, Green ,et al.If a good non Tasmanian lawyer thinks we have a case I for one will help fund it.

Posted by john hawkins on 13/05/09 at 04:36 PM

This shows where Sweco Pic’s interests were, doesn’t it! Firmly in the pockets of Gunns, as inseparable as a wad of used chewing gum would be and just as repelling.

Posted by salamander on 13/05/09 at 07:47 PM

Although John Hawkins’ advice to hire your lawyer from outside Tasmania is eminently sound, it is reportedly impossible to hire your judge up there.

John Hayward

Posted by john hayward on 13/05/09 at 09:10 PM

No wonder Premier Bartlett urged Gunns to start building immediately. They have no money, the state permits are illegal, the Federal permit remains incomplete and there are at least another two court cases pending. You see girls and boys, this is no ordinary project. This is an official state religion, involving sacrificing ancient trees to the shaman god of a perverse and archaic world view. The god that bought us the world economic downturn with all it’s lost jobs and bitter lessons. David Bartlett is privy to none of this for he is merely the glue binding the uniformed with the uneducated. Just the way the
high priests of usury want them.

Posted by no pulp mill on 13/05/09 at 10:26 PM

(1)
1nclude me in that John ! trouble is it has been tried before so many times and fallen flat for the lack of punter’s
d.d.

Posted by Don Davey on 14/05/09 at 03:24 AM

I would love to have the time to examine closely Michael Stokes opinion. It is a very interesting document. I have extracted the following from it:

“Did parliament’s approval cure the defects and validate the approval?

Parliament was not acting as a legislature when exercising the power conferred on it by the PMA Act, but was acting as a statutory authority exercising statutory powers.

The defect would not be cured by the fact that it was parliament which made the decision rather than some other body, because if parliament could waive the requirement that the consultant report that the mill could proceed, that requirement would not be a precondition of a valid approval. That is inconsistent with the words of section 7.

The PMAA gave the consultant the power to veto the mill on environmental grounds, a veto which parliament could not override.

The defect could not be cured by the fact that parliament gave its approval to the mill, because that was only one of the preconditions for a valid approval. It could not cure the lack of the other.

The effect of PMA Act, section 11
Similarly, if it were possible to challenge parliament’s approval, a successful challenge would not open the Permit to challenge because it would be protected as a ‘thing arising out of the approval’.

Accordingly, the purported exercise of the power was invalid and not protected from review by section 11.

these principles support the conclusion that if there was jurisdictional error and hence no valid assessment under section 4 and/or no valid approval under section 7 of the PMA Act, section 11 does not oust the jurisdiction of the courts to set aside the permit. “

I hope I’ll get time to return to it and do it justice. On the face of it, his opinion seems to have merit and that leaves us with the necessity of instituting a court challenge. The Greens I think have said that they won’t challenge it. So where to from here?

Posted by Garry Stannus on 14/05/09 at 07:24 AM

Re #1, I too have my hand in the pocket ready to assist if a second opinion supports the argument.

My reading of Stokes, however, gives me only slight encouragement - Bartlett will have to honour his committment not to effect any new legislation.

A PMAA Doubts Removal Act or somesuch may be already in draft.

Casey

Posted by Casey on 14/05/09 at 10:17 AM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Before you submit your comment, please make sure that it complies with Tasmanian Times Code of Conduct.